Trump killed it. Also called out globalism full stop. All Trump had to do was show his nuanced side. The trucons banked everything on him not having one.

Say goodbye to your glorious conservative globalist trade deals, neocons. China and most other countries do not play fair, and you just ignore it, and expect us to shrug and go along with you, because you're very smart people.

It's been a bad year for the predictions of the smart set. Maybe not so smart after all?

I remember when George W. Bush presented a well-nuanced, thoughtful foreign policy speech early in his first campaign, and everyone in the media either ignored it or pooh-poohed it as a speech well read but written by staff.

Foreign policy took up an awful lot of 43's presidency.

May the Donald be faced with a world so troubled by intra-border issues there is little extraterritorial squabbling. Millions may die, yet peace be maintained.

Of course, if Hillary is president millions will die, definitely, but she won't be blamed for it.

It's interesting that even though Trump is the leading contender for the Republican nomination, and this speech is a total overhaul of American foreign policy for the 21st century, all the major media outlets are leading with Cruz picking Fiorina as his VP pick. Maybe mainstream media is in shock?

Regardless of who wrote the speech, The Donald nailed every issue I care about. There was absolutely nothing in that speech with which I could find fault. I favor Cruz because of his consistent Constitutionalism. Trump's foreign policy speech today should appeal to anyone who is appalled by the multiple failures of Obama-Clinton diplomacy.

Exactly! Hooray! The other welcome nugget, for me, was the long-overdue observation that we cannot impose Western democracy in the Middle east and we should not be trying. He could have added that only contractors like Halliburton have benefited from our efforts but he tempered any direct criticism of the George W. Bush administration.

Trump: "We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.

It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy."

He takes out everybody. Hillary. Obama. And then links them to a continuation of the neocon nation building that they supposedly opposed.

The problem is, the people who say that we can't export democracy are the same people who in odd-numbered years say that we shouldn't be supporting dictators. (Of course people overseas hate us, because we support dictators.) So then we withdraw from our commitments, until we are attacked on American soil, whereupon we head out again, either supporting dictators or exporting democracy, since those are the only two options.

And the seasons, they go round and round,And the painted ponies go up and down.

"It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy."

Actually, with the Saddam and Taliban regimes, we went to war because of the threat to American national security. Winning a war requires securing the peace in the post-war - once the enemy was deposed, no one argues that we should have imposed a dictatorship in Afghanistan having liberated the country. Similarly, America the leader of the free world wasn't about to impose a dictatorship in Iraq having liberated the country.

To set the record straight on the grounds of the Iraq intervention, see:Answers to "Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?" & "Why not free a noncompliant Saddam?";Answers to "Did Iraq failing its compliance test justify the regime change?" & "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom about WMD or democracy?" & "Was the invasion of Iraq perceived to be a nation-building effort?";Answer to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?".

Gusty Winds:"And then links them to a continuation of the neocon nation building that they supposedly opposed."

Actually, there's an odd point implicit in what elcee says: Most Trump supporters despise Obama. But most of the American policies that Trump criticizes are the policies of Bush I and II. It certainly isn't the case that Obama has been trying to export democracy (he's made it clear that he is very willing to get cozy with dictatorships) or doing unilateral favors for our Muslim friends (we don't have any Muslim friends any more). In fact, our recent foreign policy seems to consist of an alternation of drone strikes, i.e., cheap and nasty military action, and doing deals, which is pretty much what Trump wants to do. (I know, I know, he'll do it much better.)

ReasonableMan: That kind of hateful rhetoric really degrades our civic discourse. Why do you want to spew hatred and venom? Do you really think that your capacity for either vituperation or actual violence exceeds that of your opponents? Think again, dude.

"We're going to be working very closely with our friends in the Muslim world, which are all at risk for violent attacks.... This has to be a two-way street. They must also be good to us. It's no longer one way, it's two way."

AMEN! I hope Trump turns out to be another Reagan. Maybe... just maybe.